CHI05LA140

The twin-engine airplane was destroyed when it impacted the ground shortly after takeoff. There was a postimpact fire. The left seat pilot had just purchased the airplane. He did not possess a rating for multiengine airplanes. The right seat pilot was a certified flight instructor (CFI) and had a rating for multi-engine airplanes. He listed 62.5 hours total multi-engine experience, 32 hours experience as a multi-engine instructor, and 20.3 hours in the same make and model as the accident airplane. The CFI reported that shortly after takeoff, the left wing "dipped." He reported that he had no recollection of the accident sequence after that point. Both pilots listed "left engine failure" in the malfunction portion of their reports. Postaccident examination of the airplane failed to reveal any anomalies that could be determined to have existed prior to the impact.

On June 11, 2005, about 1200 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 310C, N311V, piloted by a private pilot and a certified flight instructor (CFI), was destroyed on impact with terrain and fire after takeoff from runway 27 at the Ray Community Airport (57D), Ray, Michigan. The airplane came to rest about 1 mile southwest of the airport. The 14 CFR Part 91 instructional flight was operating in visual meteorological conditions without a flight plan. The pilot and the CFI received serious injuries. The flight was originating at the time of the accident and Nauvoo, Illinois, was the intended destination

The private pilot seated in the left seat did not hold a multi-engine rating on his pilot certificate. The CFI, seated in the right seat held a commercial pilot certificate and a certified flight instructor certificate. Both certificates listed a rating for multi-engine airplanes. In his written report, the CFI reported having 845.3 hours total flight experience, 62.5 hours of multi-engine flight experience, 32 hours of multi-engine experience as a flight instructor, and 20.3 hours experience in Cessna 310 airplanes.

According to the CFI's written report, he and his student had flown to 57D in order to test fly the accident airplane. He stated that after an uneventful flight, his student decided to purchase the airplane. The CFI reported that the airplane "flew great" during the test flight. He reported that after the purchase was made, he and his student encountered, "a little trouble starting up the left engine, but we got it going [and] everything according to the gauges looked good." He stated that after takeoff he remembered checking the airspeed indicator and it read about 10 knots above the best single-engine rate of climb airspeed and the vertical airspeed indicator read a climb of 700 to 1,000 feet per minute. He stated that the left wing "dipped" and that he could not remember anything after this point in the flight.

The private pilot's report contained no narrative description of the accident flight.

Both pilots reported, "left engine failure" in the "Mechanical Malfunction Failure" portion of their respective reports.

According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Inspectors, the wreckage evidence was consistent with a left wing low impact. Control system continuity was verified from each respective control surface to the cockpit. Fuel was found in the auxiliary fuel tanks. The main fuel tanks were ruptured and a trail of discolored vegetation was found. No anomalies were found with respect to the airframe.

The engines were examined on-scene and no evidence of internal mechanical failure was evident. The magnetos were removed for further examination. Examination of the magnetos at the manufacturer's facility was done under direct supervision of a National Transportation Safety Board Investigator. Each magneto was able to produce spark throughout the entire operating range when tested. No anomalies were found during the test.

The manufacturer examined both propellers at a later date. The examinations were performed under the direct supervision of a FAA inspector.

Examination of the left propeller revealed that one of the blade counterweights had punctured the spinner dome during the accident sequence. The location of the puncture corresponded to a low-pitch angle setting of the blade. The piston position was measured and corresponded with a blade angle setting approximately at the low-pitch stop.

Examination of the right propeller revealed that one blade was bent aft while the other blade was bent forward. The position of the blades and the piston corresponded with a feathered position. The spinner dome had been twisted and formed over the hub piston and blades. Further examination of the propellers pitch change rod revealed an impact mark that corresponded to an approximately 13-degree blade angle. The low pitch stop is at a 13.5-degree blade angle.

No anomalies were found with respect to the engines or their systems that could be determined to have existed prior to impact.